tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Most people are too stupid to make good decisions, we should make it tougher to make bad ones.

---

Thankfully, you are here to tell us all how we should be living our lives.

If people are too stupid, why mandate the use of labels and more information? Should we just ban the stuff outright? We need a 'Don't Bake the Cake' meme

---

I already said I would prefer to ban it, but if not then we should have labels so at least fewer people will be prone to continue buying the *****

Pookers said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

So that's 4 potential labels so far.

Any others?

---

Lets stop playing with these labels and just make it to where food additives must be proven safe over a period of years BEFORE its added to food and not the other way around. The amount of times corporations have poisoned us en masse and then fessing up 30 years later is way to much to give them any amount of leeway at this point.

---

I would speculate that overconsumption of corn, wheat, and sugar has done more damage to the general health of Americans than 'additives' over the last 30 years. Crops probably grown and sold by fellows Aggies that post on this board.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Its insane how short sighted lolbertarians are on this topic

---

I, for one, am not a libertarian. They are a joke with no moral or logical thinking ability for the most part.

I have no problem with foods being labeled so consumers know what they are getting. I am all for making food safer. If something is not safe, lets address that issue, not depend on foreign lands.

But when you start to require a label noting ANY "first world country" bans a particular food or ingredient, that is where I start to question the logic of such a law.

What if the EU bans soybean oils? Now McDonalds has to label every bag of fires with "BANNED IN THE EU."

---

I don't care what the EU does personally, I think all these chemical additives should be banned here, I suppose at the state level. Seed Oils are dangerous and should be among the first things to go. Tallow is a lot better.

Pookers said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Its insane how short sighted lolbertarians are on this topic

---

I, for one, am not a libertarian. They are a joke with no moral or logical thinking ability for the most part.

I have no problem with foods being labeled so consumers know what they are getting. I am all for making food safer. If something is not safe, lets address that issue, not depend on foreign lands.

But when you start to require a label noting ANY "first world country" bans a particular food or ingredient, that is where I start to question the logic of such a law.

What if the EU bans soybean oils? Now McDonalds has to label every bag of fires with "BANNED IN THE EU."

---

I don't care what the EU does personally, I think all these chemical additives should be banned here, I suppose at the state level. Seed Oils are dangerous and should be among the first things to go. Tallow is a lot better.

---

When McDonald's changed from animal fat to oil their fries started not tasting as good.

tysker said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

So that's 4 potential labels so far.

Any others?

---

Lets stop playing with these labels and just make it to where food additives must be proven safe over a period of years BEFORE its added to food and not the other way around. The amount of times corporations have poisoned us en masse and then fessing up 30 years later is way to much to give them any amount of leeway at this point.

---

I would speculate that overconsumption of corn, wheat, and sugar has done more damage to the general health of Americans than 'additives' over the last 30 years. Crops probably grown and sold by fellows Aggies that post on this board.

---

Probably so, but hexachlorineethylred50sorbitol3 should be easy to get rid of. Sugar, corn, and wheat are known quantities. The chemicals are not.

gbaby23 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Most people are too stupid to make good decisions, we should make it tougher to make bad ones.

---

Thankfully, you are here to tell us all how we should be living our lives.

If people are too stupid, why mandate the use of labels and more information? Should we just ban the stuff outright? We need a 'Don't Bake the Cake' meme

---

I already said I would prefer to ban it, but if not then we should have labels so at least fewer people will be prone to continue buying the *****

---

But they're dumb, so what makes you think a label will work? Labeling and calorie counts have already shown little to no effect on the obesity rates in the US.

Again, I think you'll need a 'Dont Bake the Cake' meme

BigRobSA said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Its insane how short sighted lolbertarians are on this topic

---

I, for one, am not a libertarian. They are a joke with no moral or logical thinking ability for the most part.

I have no problem with foods being labeled so consumers know what they are getting. I am all for making food safer. If something is not safe, lets address that issue, not depend on foreign lands.

But when you start to require a label noting ANY "first world country" bans a particular food or ingredient, that is where I start to question the logic of such a law.

What if the EU bans soybean oils? Now McDonalds has to label every bag of fires with "BANNED IN THE EU."

---

I don't care what the EU does personally, I think all these chemical additives should be banned here, I suppose at the state level. Seed Oils are dangerous and should be among the first things to go. Tallow is a lot better.

---

When McDonald's changed from animal fat to oil their fries started not tasting as good.

---

Diabetus tastes good for sure.

Pookers said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Its insane how short sighted lolbertarians are on this topic

---

I, for one, am not a libertarian. They are a joke with no moral or logical thinking ability for the most part.

I have no problem with foods being labeled so consumers know what they are getting. I am all for making food safer. If something is not safe, lets address that issue, not depend on foreign lands.

But when you start to require a label noting ANY "first world country" bans a particular food or ingredient, that is where I start to question the logic of such a law.

What if the EU bans soybean oils? Now McDonalds has to label every bag of fires with "BANNED IN THE EU."

---

I don't care what the EU does personally, I think all these chemical additives should be banned here, I suppose at the state level. Seed Oils are dangerous and should be among the first things to go. Tallow is a lot better.

---

When McDonald's changed from animal fat to oil their fries started not tasting as good.

---

Diabetus tastes good for sure.

---

Sugar coated Metformin tabs ftmfw

I already said they should ban it, and even if it does not fix the problem some people will stop eating the garbage chicken.

I think you might be one of the people a label would not work on.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
I've never understood why were hold other parts of the world as the standard for what should be done. That's not the U.S. I grew up in.

---

When other parts of the world CLEARLY have healthier food we should take a look at what they're doing. It's a warning label, not a ban on those ingredients. The US I grew up in gave a damn about it's citizens' diet, or so I thought.

---

So what do you think about their levels of gun violence?

---

No one is being asked to give up their red dye #6 or whatever abomination is put in so much of our food. But a good look at what another country does that also won't violate a constitutional amendment may be smart.

Gun violence in the US outside of certain communities pretty much matches EU levels.

gbaby23 said:

---

I think you might be one of the people a label would not work on.

---

You're right. I didn't follow all those 'wear your mask' labels or the 'avoid the outside' labels a few years back and now I'm totally dead

tysker said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

I think you might be one of the people a label would not work on.

---

You're right. I didn't follow all those 'wear your mask' labels or the 'avoid the outside' labels a few years back and now I'm totally dead

---

The same people that told you to wear the mask are telling you to eat the chlorinated chicken and petroleum covered produce, but you definitely owned the libs with this comment.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I've never understood why were hold other parts of the world as the standard for what should be done. That's not the U.S. I grew up in.

---

Generally speaking, i agree.

But in the case of the US food industry - we suck compared to most of the other world when it comes to what can and cannot be included in things sold in stores or restaurants as food for consumption.

There is a reason why we are among the fattest in the world and consume the most amount of pharmaceuticals per capita (by far) in the world.

Sometimes....just sometimes....a smidge of something good does come from government. I'd argue that the more transparency and honesty there is with food products, the better.

The reason why Europe is "healthier" than the US is because they are more physically active due to the infrastructures and cultures they live in. It has very little to do with the food itself, although their food is fresher thanks to that infrastructure.

The internet is what is making people unhealthy. Many of the "bad ingredients" existed in the 70's and 80's before the internet was widespread and there wasn't a huge health crisis then.

Every time I hear about some kind of ingredient being a huge health concern I think about the Supersize Me documentary where the dude was eating absurd amounts of food in one sitting while also downing gallons of alcohol off camera. Or the "red meat, eggs, and fats are bad for you" fraud. Sure, it might be unhealthy in some circumstances, but it's very likely nowhere near as bad as what you're being lead to believe.

I find it interesting that people that are in favor of this kind of food labeling would have called it "commie whacko environut government overreach" were it being proposed by Obama or Biden.

Read the label, and make your own decision. Don't rely on daddy government to govern you harder.

We had health issues in the 70s and 80s, but you are right that obesity has accelerated due to people being more sedentary. It is not one or the other. Celiac disease and bowel disorders have disproportionately skyrocketed in America. This disrupts the gut brain axis which can play a factor in mental illnesses and mood disorders, which are also on the rise. There is increasing evidence that these are caused by overabundance of chemical additives, dyes, preservatives, etc. which have only increased since the 70s and 80s like you said.

We have a whole host of dietary and metabolic issues that go beyond just people getting fatter. The excuse by the lobbyists for the new ingredients and methods is that more people would starve if we did not have the industrialized food supply chain than would die of the consequences of including. I disagree with that, but you are not going to fix it without some sort of government intervention.

I understand my preferred course of action is too radical for most, but if things are going to be outside the range of simple, traditional methods then label it that way. Others have said "read the label" but there has to be a label to read one.

Obviously something is wrong in America with the food. Sure, you can say "every man for himself" but many of these companies know the issues, work to cover them up, and lobby to keep it as is because anything else would hurt the bottom line.

The problem you're going to have is linking all those disease prevalence increases to being caused by the actual food. The increase in gluten in wheat strands isn't even considered a primary factor in the rise in celiac disease, if it's one at all. You're going to have to prove that it's an ingredient and not just better detection, healthcare, and less microbe exposure similar to what causes the rise in allergies.

And I'm going to be completely honest, I'm not going to take what you say at face value on these topics when you say you want a warning label/ban for US chicken because they use a chlorine wash. Chlorine residue is not why the wash was banned in the EU, the residue is not considered to be a health concern by the EFSA.

These happening state by state will end up a total cluster****. And much of this kind of crap is marketing to the ocd nuts and those looking for something to blame. Eat less. Exercise more.

Here are some studies showing the relationship between these compounds and health disorders. You can argue that you believe the industrial food supply chain requires them and we cannot live without if you want, but people should know the risks because they are there and they are increasing as the compounds become more common.

Even if you do not believe this is caused by the additives and is only caused by enhanced detection, prove it. People should know there are risks to these compounds and more effort should be placed in trying to determine the root cause of why they are increasing, whether it be through improved medical practices or toxic compound exposure. People are unquestionably more unhealthy than in the past and it is not just due to a sedentary lifestyle and obesity.

Quote:

---

The impact of selected food additives on the gastrointestinal tract in the example of nonspecific inflammatory bowel diseases: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9479712/

Toxicological and Teratogenic Effect of Various Food Additives: An Updated Review: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9249520/

Food Additives and Child Health: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6298598/

Chronic Effects of Dietary Pesticides on the Gut Microbiome and Neurodevelopment: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9279132/

Persistent organic pollutant exposure and celiac disease: A pilot study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120303327?via%3Dihub

---

I guess no one should be taking you at face value because here is my exact quote about why chlorinated US chicken is banned in the EU, because the production methods are so disgusting it must be chemically disinfected for human consumption.

Quote:

---

Yeah, mainly due to hygiene concerns from factory farming. Most chicken in America has to be thoroughly washed in a chlorine bath because of how disgusting those operations can be.

---

Here is also my suggested label for the garbage chicken if not outright banned for being so low quality. Although, I would probably change processing to "disinfection" but that is what brainstorming is for.

Quote:

---

"This chicken is factory farmed and uses a chlorine wash for processing"

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
I've never understood why were hold other parts of the world as the standard for what should be done. That's not the U.S. I grew up in.

---

When other parts of the world CLEARLY have healthier food we should take a look at what they're doing. It's a warning label, not a ban on those ingredients. The US I grew up in gave a damn about it's citizens' diet, or so I thought.

---

So what do you think about their levels of gun violence?

---

No one is being asked to give up their red dye #6 or whatever abomination is put in so much of our food. But a good look at what another country does that also won't violate a constitutional amendment may be smart.

Gun violence in the US outside of certain communities pretty much matches EU levels.

---

But gun violence in those countries are significantly lower than in the U.S. Maybe you think we should look into their solutions, right?

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Compelled speech? Lol. Looks like the libertarians are at it again.

Yes, I want to compel slop shoveling corporations to tell us what they're selling us. That includes caloric content AND harmful ingredients. The "free market" has been an abject failure in reigning in corporate greed at the expense of health.

---

at least they're consistent.

ETA: which is more than anyone can say for either mainstream party.

HTownAg98 said:

---

I find it interesting that people that are in favor of this kind of food labeling would have called it "commie whacko environut government overreach" were it being proposed by Obama or Biden.

Read the label, and make your own decision. Don't rely on daddy government to govern you harder.

---

Yep

My point exactly....because it is. But since it's R's (who are way liberal, also) it's a good thing that totally won't go wrong and also increase prices. This time, liberalism will work.

SunrayAg said:

---

Increased labeling requirements increase costs. Turn the package over and read the ingredients. If you see something you don't like, don't buy it. Simple. Free.

---

Yeah... that extra $00.01 label is going to break us. Unless the label is made in a union shop... then $00.25. ****ers.

JamesPShelley said:

---

SunrayAg said:

---

Increased labeling requirements increase costs. Turn the package over and read the ingredients. If you see something you don't like, don't buy it. Simple. Free.

---

Yeah... that extra $00.01 label is going to break us. Unless the label is made in a union shop... then $00.25. ****ers.

---

Your taxes are only going up $20.

Would buy popcorn watching the response to some of you reading The Jungle and then finding out that Upton Sinclair was a socialist. Sometimes being an adult means you have to do the right thing even if it falls outside of outdated, preconceived axioms.